kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 30, 2012 9:54:58 GMT -5
Well, I don't know if I would use handwriting as an example of solid evidence. Even John Douglas was a skeptical of the accuracy of handwriting analysis and the fact that so many differing opinions can be found only confirms it in my mind. More to the point are the letters themselves. In both the LKC and the JBR case the ransom notes reveal quite a bit. Such aspects as the tone, the physical properties of the paper, the ink, the syntax, the grammar, and the demands are all true evidence which can reveal quite a bit about the author. My comparison to the JBR case was due to the misinterpretation of the parents demeanor. Naturally, the parents and immediate family should always be suspect. But with no further corroborating evidence it is folly to keep them as prime suspects simply because you focus on some type of bizarre motive. If you look hard enough and use enough imagination you can probably arrive at a motive for practically anyone. In the JBR case it was bed wetting as a motive for murder by the parent(s). In the LKC we have some unnamed physical disease or deformity of the child. Same drill, different cases. The bottom line is that motive, unless clearly distinguishable ( like insurance gain) is not to be put in front of evidence. Now if you or anyone can produce something in the way of a connection between Lindbergh and BRH, no matter how many times removed or some evidence of planning or communication on Lindbergh's part, I'm all ears. However, what I see presently is a crime with some elements of good planning and experience coupled with some serious improvisation. That's pretty typical for all crimes. What I don't see is the hand of an almost compulsive control freak like Lindbergh. In fact, this case has too many instances of being on the verge of chaos. That's simply not Charles Lindbergh's signature.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2012 13:15:59 GMT -5
I don't know enough about the JBR to intelligently debate it. I heard the ransom asked for specific amount equaling his bonus (or something like that) and that each side had a Handwriting Expert saying something different.
I do however believe any Parent should be looked at closely then ruled out based upon the evidence. But that didn't happen in the Lindbergh Case.
So does this mean you do or do not believe Hauptmann wrote those notes?
That could certainly happen. Everyone reacts to stress differently. But my problem is Lindbergh acts the part, immediately at first, then reverts back to his normal everyday self - even pulling pranks on the People who were trying to help him find his son during the course of the investigation. So I look at the variable (stress) to see what effect it had on him. This is something to earmark and applied to whatever future accumulation occurs. It could help to eliminate him or help to cause further suspicion. But my point is, as it has been all along, he has to be looked at in order to make that determination.
I would have to disagree. Bedwetting vs. serious illness isn't the same especially when considering CJr. was expected to be among the elite of all children born to this planet and his Father was a Eugenist. Next, he was a Prankster who would pull some of the most unsavery jokes on just about anyone and think nothing of it and he just so happend to have pulled (the oldie but goodie) "CJr. is kidnapped" - TWICE previously. So there's a little more to consider here in my opinion.
I certainly agree it is not stand alone evidence.
If this is what you would require to even consider the possibility all there is as of now within the public domain is Jones.
Extremely important observation, and I agree 100%.
So let's say he was originally involved somehow. What does this say about the crime if that IS true? Humor me for a minute and give me your opinion. How can it work under these circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2012 13:17:46 GMT -5
Here is just one (of about a million) examples that I have referenced. It shows how many books could be written about this case if one so chose: Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 13:27:52 GMT -5
I am a bit surprised that Lindbergh's control of the case is not evident to you. Almost every book I have read remarks about his control of the investigation. From the nursery night to St. Raymonds Cemetary Lindbergh worked very hard to keep a handle on how everything played out.
I don't put a lot of stock in handwriting analysis either. In Zorn's book they used three letters "ohn" from John this say Knoll was the author of the ransom notes. And the three letter match came only from the envelopes addressed to Dr. Condon. Not good enough to convince me that Knoll was the "mastermind" of the kidnapping.
I wonder what would have happened if rail 16 didn't match up to wood from Hauptmann's house. How would they ever have connected him to Highfields if they didn't have that??? Hochmuth and Whited lied under oath about seeing him so they are out.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 1, 2012 10:18:54 GMT -5
But we can now At this point, I believe he did or at least some of them. I completely disregard the handwriting and go with the grammar, syntax, and drawing. If he were a party to the crime, wouldn't you expect him to act unusual ? No they are not and I did not mean to compare them in that way. My point is that they were ( and still are) used in the same manner to find a motive. Another thing, Eugenics was at one time associated with Darwin until the Nazis appropriated it. Any farmer who raises livestock knows it very well. It's pure conjecture without some meat. I would rather hope that everyone would require this. We could make everyone a suspect with only persona and possible motives, but what would be the point? Well first off, Lindbergh would never pull the pin on this grenade. What I mean is that the whole crime could have been kept under control if that note was opened and the police left out. This is probably the most damning argument against Lindbergh's involvement. Sure, you can argue that he proceeded to control the investigation, but no one, not even the great Lindbergh, could know beforehand how that would evolve. If he is involved somehow, I'd say he uncharacteristically lost control at some point and trusted the wrong people. I assume this is directed to me. It is absolutely evident to me that Lindbergh tried to keep the investigation under his control. What is not evident to me is Lindbergh's control over the planning and execution of the crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 11:12:32 GMT -5
"What is not evident to me is Lindbergh's control over the planning and execution of the crime." (Kevkon) This is difficult to see, I agree with you. The planning and execution are based on the motive for the crime. If Lindbergh were involved what would motivate him to do this? Would an unexpected death of Charlie because of an accident be motive enough? What about trying to protect a family member that might have harmed Charlie? Might he have planned it for reasons like that? Motive for someone like BRH is so much more clear. It was all about the money; therefore he planned and executed the crime. So much more simple except when you start looking at the evidence. The one thing that does stand out about that nursery kidnap note is if Lindbergh knew thats what is was from the get-go, why did he do just the opposite of what its asked by bringing in the police and not waiting the 2-4 days to be contacted again so the exchange could be made - money for baby. He not only brings in the police, he also uses the newspapers to establish communications. He also, through Breckinridge, trys to involve the underworld. Why would he do all this when the kidnappers said they would contact him in 2-4 days. There was communications established with that note. He didn't need to create it. Why did he think he did? ?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 1, 2012 14:06:42 GMT -5
Amy, I think this one is pretty obvious. Lindbergh brought in the police before the note was opened. So in his mind, he was not doing the opposite of what the kidnappers demanded. I must say though, your question makes me chuckle, simply because in the comedy Ruthless People, Danny DeVito did the exact opposite of what the kidnappers demanded—he brought in the police and media because the kidnappers sternly warned him not to do so, and he was HOPING they would kill his wife. One of the kidnappers says: “What did he do, hire a publicist?” Hey, here's the relevant scene: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QJoV6_o5mUThat movie still cracks me up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 14:30:21 GMT -5
BR,
Enjoyed that clip. Did Danny call the police because he wanted them to kill his wife. Does he ever pay the ransom? Would enjoy seeing this movie. Maybe netflix might have it.
I should have explained myself better when I said about him knowing it was a ransom note. I was thinking that if he knew it was he also would have known what it said inside, hence my question as to why he would do just the opposite and even more by bringing in the underworld. Sorry for not being clear with my question.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 1, 2012 14:47:30 GMT -5
I won’t give away the plot, but it’s a classic, and worth seeing if you’re up for some laughs.
Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 20:03:42 GMT -5
Kevkon, Have you seen Sue75's post in the Champ Atlee thread? It puts Hauptmann in the Trenton area in 1931 looking at the houseplans for Highfields. Would like to know your thoughts about the article.
BR, have you read the above referenced article? Would like to know what you think about it also.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 2, 2012 8:14:28 GMT -5
Amy, I think it's an interesting story, but one filled with holes. Take a look at the 1930's aerial map of NJ and decide for yourself how plausible the horseback story is. Not to mention that no equestrian apparel was ever found in Hauptmann's possession. As far as the blueprints, another architect would be the last person to have a set of construction plans. And honestly, I really don't see them as a real benefit anyway. The house was under construction at the time and houses under construction are always easy to inspect. And once again, we are back to the "Bruno" name. If Hauptmann was down in the Sourlands prior to the development of a plan to kidnap or murder the child, I would bet that it was either due to illegal alcohol or hunting.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2012 8:18:39 GMT -5
It's a double-edged sword because you could use this argument if someone is involved or if someone is upset their child is gone.
He did act like a frantic parent when he grabbed his gun then ran out into the darkness. But he never did again after that little episode. It depends on the person. Some people make good criminals because they justify their actions, therefore, in their minds they've done nothing wrong to be bothered about. Your conscience bothers you when you believe you've done something you should not have. Then you have people who are good Actors.
In my opinion, Lindbergh was warped when it came to both his jokes and convictions. He was not an Actor. So for someone pulling pranks on Investigators in this very serious situation where they seem more interested in finding his son then he does - could be chalked up to someone trying to cope - if this wasn't his normal behavior pattern.
So being "normal" doesn't make sense if you apply it to involvement, OR in light of the serious crime against his family.
So then my question would be - how do we reconcile it?
A starting point then a serious look-see. Things are missed when you omit, neglect, or talk oneself out of things.
Let me give you an example.
George Custer was known by the Sioux for his long hair. He was also known for his risky, yet very successful charges.
Prior to the campaign that brought him to the battle of Little Bighorn, Custer's wife told him to cut his hair. What are the odds he would? But he did. If someone would have suggested he would have cut his hair they would have laughed your face. His whole life he did things HIS way going all the way back to the Academy where he was lucky to have graduated.
The Indians were under orders that if it was Custer they would face - they would not fight him. But the Scouts didn't recognize Custer because he cut his hair. Finally, he lead a charge at the Ford which was unsuccessful. If he hadn't cut his hair Custer wouldn't have died and probably would have been our next President.
My point is that certain unexpected things do happen. But they're unexpected for a reason. So once they do, how does that person affected react?
I like that you are considering these possibilities. As you continue your research you may personally choose to remove or add others. You might even come to the conclusion that he should be eliminated from consideration.
Exactly. These are the types of things that would be considered if it were anyone else doing them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 3, 2012 10:22:02 GMT -5
I really can't agree on this point. A person involved in a crime, particularly a crime of this nature, will not respond in the same manner as one who is innocent. This is not conjecture, it is fact based on behavioral science. Lindbergh would not be Lindbergh if he was involved in this crime because he would essentially be in a continuous lie. He would act and respond in a manner very unlike himself. I would guarantee that the first act performed by him would be to allow Ann or Betty to open that note. The second act would be to dutifully follow the instructions contained in that note. The third act would be an outward display of grief. The fourth act would be revenge. These acts would not be Lindbergh, but Lindbergh playing what he would feel Lindbergh should be.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 3, 2012 20:09:01 GMT -5
His first act was unlike himself. Just compare it to the rest of his actions. Now, like I said, I believe it can be explained with either explanation.
I think we'll always disagree since I believe I covered all the bases above. Remember, if someone doesn't believe what they did was a crime, or they can justify it in their mind - they have the ability to beat a lie detector - they don't need to employ countermeasures.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 4, 2012 9:54:30 GMT -5
I agree about the lie detector, that's a fact. I guess we will disagree about the actions of Lindbergh. All I am seeing is Lindbergh being Lindbergh. I'm just not seeing a guy trying to pretend to be something other. Another point, and I'm sure you won't agree, Lindbergh was a human and was a father, no matter how poorly one sees his character he still was subject to the emotions that such a horrible experience brings forth. Now add to that element the very nature of kidnapping or abduction which leaves the family of the victim helpless. Helpless is not a place Lindbergh is going to do well in as he attempts to control as much as possible. Is it not possible that some of his actions are the result of an internal dilemma?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2012 16:12:43 GMT -5
All things being equal I can see how we can look at the same set of circumstances and come away with two very different opinions about what they could mean.
Actually I agree this, as well as other explanations - should be explored. I've said a million times that we apply a black or white reason for things ALL involving this case when quite often the answer lies in the middle or has to do with something other then the case itself.
It's part of what I am trying to impress upon anyone who is researching, while at the same time not to get caught up in this thing where certain issues or people are "off the table." Because if you do that you learn a lot less.
Anyway, one of the other points I've suggested is there are certain things that happened I don't think anyone knows about. If they did, perhaps when applied, positions will change.
Certain variables, circumstances, and facts can do that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 8, 2012 15:11:29 GMT -5
I moved your question here Amy, all that eugenics talk gets me tired. An architect first creates a design set or preliminary drawings for a client's approval. Once approved the preliminary set is turned into working or construction drawings which contain all the info needed for a builder to estimate and construct the house. Given the importance of the client and the prominence of the architect of record, I have a very difficult time believing some guy in a wood shed on a horse farm is involved. It is possible for an architect to act as a gc, though usually using their own plans. Once again, given the prominence of the client, the bidding list would be quite small if the job was even bidded. I don't know who this Schumann is, but I seriously doubt he would have a set of plans to Highfields and quite honestly, they just were not necessary for a kidnapping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 18:00:50 GMT -5
Kevkon, glad you moved the question here. It really belonged on this thread anyway. Thanks for clarifying how the process works with architects. I am not sold on this story angle either. I am, however, interested in whether there is a connection between Hauptmann and Otto Steiner, the man Perrone identified as giving him the note to deliver to Dr. Condon. I don't really feel that Hauptmann did this entire crime alone. I think that Isador Fisch was involved with the extortion end because Dr. Condon's original description of CJ included a cough of a serious nature.
Since you have ties to the Zorn book, I don't know if you can answer this question. How do you view Hauptmann's role in this crime? Do you see him as the mastermind or in a lesser role? Do you think he could have been drawn into this by someone else or do you think he searched out accomplices to help with this kidnapping?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 9, 2012 7:23:43 GMT -5
I guess that's the 50,000$ question, Amy. I really don't see the hand of a "mastermind" anywhere at work in this crime except in the authorship of books about the case. What I see is the hand of an opportunistic criminal(s) with some experience. I'm also not of the opinion that Hauptmann would be someones dupe. I think he's clever, fearless, extremely resourceful, and intelligent to a point. Personally I do believe he had an accomplice, though I don't know how the involvement was split. I would be reasonably sure that it would be a fellow German and probably someone under the radar as was Hauptmann. Perhaps this other was responsible for the target selection due to some connection with the Hopewell area. Regarding the book by Bob Zorn, my sole contribution was regarding the ladder and it's details. Personally I see his story as fatally flawed, but I still think it's great to see the focus moved to Hauptmann's court rather than Lindbergh's. The new Nova production on the kidnapping is another story and I had a much larger role. It also will be quite enlightening to many who follow this case. In fact, there is a possibility that some new testing will be allowed which has never before been performed in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2012 10:48:29 GMT -5
I like the idea that the kidnappers were people who were under the radar. With no prior history of arrests they would not be in police mug shot books. Condon's description of CJ is what police relied on when looking for the kidnappers.
I look forward to seeing the Nova production. Please post the air date when you get it. I don't want to miss it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 9, 2012 12:31:24 GMT -5
Kevkon, I agree that it's good to see the focus moved to Hauptmann's court, as you say. I think Zorn's book is, at the very least, a step in the right direction as far as all that goes, but I was curious--in what way do you find the book fatally flawed? And I can't wait for this documentary. I thought it was just going to focus on Zorn's Knoll angle. What is this "new testing" that will be done?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 10, 2012 9:11:11 GMT -5
You might say that Bob Zorn's book was the catalyst for the Nova show. I'm not sure what the focus of the show will be as it is still in production, but it will have FBI profiler John Douglas as the central figure examining the crime. There is an actual re-enactment filmed at Highfields and modern forensics applied to evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 10, 2012 16:19:44 GMT -5
John Douglas is the Crown Jewel of Law Enforcement so knowing he's involved tells me what the show is going to be like. My last trip to the Archives I saw 2 people from Nova researching through the files. I was there for about 6 hours. They had been there before I was and were still there when I left - and this was just 1 random day.
So needless to say - I can't wait for the show to air!
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Dec 17, 2012 20:26:49 GMT -5
I was giving some thought about the fate of the ladder and whether or not it was meant to be left behind. Personally I don't see any reason to have taken it providing the kidnappers felt it contained no incriminating evidence. ... Thinking about this has caused me to wonder just how long a distance they would have chanced driving with the baby, either dead or alive, in the car. My guess is not far at all. If the ladder were planned to be left behind, then there was no reason to carry it away from the house at all. If the baby were dead, obviously it made no sense to have it in the car- that's why it was buried And I disagree that there was any possibility of more than Hauptmann acting alone. To my mind, the accidental killing of the baby and the left behind chisel and ladder all point to a single kidnapper, and no evidence has ever been uncovered to persuade me otherwise.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 22, 2012 6:56:47 GMT -5
Hey Arthur, I think it's always a good thing when a person admits that they have a closed mind.
|
|
|
Post by rose21 on Apr 12, 2013 20:36:21 GMT -5
"But I’ve read elsewhere that Noso nursed a grudge against Dwight Morrow, believing Morrow had cheated him out of a large sum of money owed for work he did in Mexico—was it $50,000? Noso was a sly and daring character, certainly sly and daring enough for a stunt like this, and a double-cross. And when you factor in that he has been linked to Condon, maybe he’s the “perfect storm” that fits this thesis—not that I accept the thesis. I am new to the board and not nearly as well versed in this as most of you. I have read Behn's book, background on Ellis Parker, and much online stuff. I am especially impressed with bookrefuge's posts. These align quite well with my thinking, especially suspicions about Nosovitsky. I am convinced he is involved in the extortion or kidnapping (likely both), but he seems to be given a pass. Stroh's story (and Uncle Dinny's) suggest that Nosovitsky was going around recruiting people for a kidnapping ("in New Jersey", yet.) He is also reportedly seen with Fishe and Violet Sharpe at a cafe. He is also confirmed to be JJ Faulkner. As a linguist, he could easily have written those extortion notes as well. The twist I see, however, is that Nosovitsky is deliberately going around and dropping clues. The reason?? To make this look like a regular kidnapping for money. Nosovitsky is way too smart to just announce to a couple of jail mates that he is planning the "perfect kidnapping". He is -- but not for the reasons everyone assumes. This guy has connections to people in high places. If I wanted to throw a monkey wrench into any plans Lindbergh might have for going into politics, I would probably hire Nosovitsky to do the dirty work. He is brilliant, unscrupulous and greedy, and he has the system to protect him from prosecution. Much more needs to be discovered regarding his motives, but I do think he is the kingpin in all of this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2013 15:57:23 GMT -5
Hi Rose.
It's funny that I was just thumbing through a letter HRO wrote in June 1977. In it he claimed Noso was trying to collect 50K "who had been trying to collect same for a number of years on what he felt was a welched oil deal with Morrow and the Morgan bank in Mexico."
I personally do not believe he had anything to do with this case. However, there's a ton of information on him "out there" which could prove otherwise. If there is something specific you would like me to share on him (or anything else) just let me know and I will try to help. I have a file on him that's about 15 separate folders in number. There's also a number of Members here who have their own Files on him (Joe immediately comes to mind).
|
|
|
Post by rose21 on Apr 13, 2013 22:03:54 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael. This Board is a real treasure trove -- and the fact that you have a lot of additional files, etc. is amazing. I will have to do some additional research and thinking, but I am very curious about why you have decided that Nosovisky is likely not involved. To me, he seems like the most obvious person to have masterminded this. If Stroh's and Dinny's accounts are to be believed there are some good reasons to suspect him. What I also don't like is that in the face of their testimony (enough for Hauck (?) to issue a warrant in 1937) no one ever goes after him. He does make the claim of not getting money owed to him by Morrow, but he also seems to me to be being protected. What's more, I think he knows he is protected, which is why he can be a bit flamboyant about stating his plans. I would very much like to have you share your thoughts on why he is not a prime suspect in your view.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 14, 2013 10:40:42 GMT -5
I think I would be better able to explain if I knew what points made you think he was. It's how my brain works.
If for example, it was because of Jesse Pelletreau's assertion that Hauptmann hadn't written the notes but that Nosovitsky did, then I would explain that while Pelletreau had some worth as a PI, he was only a student of handwriting analysis and not an Expert.
Next, Pelletreau had volunteered his services to the Governor's efforts and worked with Gus Lockwood on this angle. They secured Nosovitsky's handwriting from Max Sherwood, another PI who had used Nosovitsky as a strike-breaker.
Lockwood told the Governor that Pelletreau double-crossed everyone by taking certain documents then selling his story first to the Daily News then to True Detective Magazine.
As a result, those working on this for the Governor immediately disassociated themselves with Pelletreau. He later re-surfaced working with a PI named J. J. McNally who would swear out a complaint against Nosovitsky to E. R. Hummer - Justice of the Peace in Frenchtown, N.J. As a result a warrant was issued for Nosovitsky. Where Hauck gets involved is the fact he's the Hunterdon County Prosecutor, and I believe eventually the Asst Attorney General. It's his job when this happened to present the matter to the Grand Jury. I can tell you he had AND wanted nothing to do with it. (Of course that could be because he did have a dog in this fight too - so having this type of allegation out there wasn't what he wanted to see.)
Now, that doesn't mean Nosovitsky is to be disregarded, however, Pelletreau it isn't someone I would lean in an attempt to prove anything. Anyway, do consider him along with everything else - just don't rely on him without anything else to pile on top.
|
|
|
Post by rose21 on Apr 14, 2013 22:47:14 GMT -5
My process is one of elimination, especially on the basis of two things: motive and capability. Who among this crew of possibles seems to have both motive and capability. I don't even believe that Hauptmann qualifies here, but Nosovitsky offers both.
I happen to find the Stroh story believable. There is no particular reason for Stroh on his own to know about Nosovitsky's involvement in Mexico, and no particular reason to make this up.
The story seems to be confirmed by Dinny, and is further bolstered by Dinny's tale of Nosovitsky attempting to recruit people for a kidnapping.
J. Edgar confirms that JJ Faulkner is Nosovitsky
Faulkner turns some of the money in at the bank.
Faulkner writes a note claiming Hauptmann is not guilty of the kidnapping/murder. Signatures for the bank notes which were turned in and on this mssg. are the same.
A man named “Jimmy Faulkner” turns up in Canada in the summer of '32 with wads of cash – big bills. His signature seems much the same as JJ Faulkner, plus similar appearance, etc.
I believe that Nosovitsky – more than almost anyone else being looked at – has the capability to commit this crime. He is a forger, a linguist, a chemist, and ruthless. He could easily adopt a phony Germanic tone for purposes of leaving ransom notes. He is a master of deceit. He poses as a Doctor on several occasions. He successfully infiltrates the Communist party. We know he has operated as a spy and has associates in the Justice Department. I believe these would be the people protecting him.
There is a claim that Nosovitsky, Fische and Violet Sharpe were acquainted. Nosovitsky also knew Gaston Means and seems to have some involvement with Condon. ---- Now, I do not think that Nosovitsky actually does the crime for the money. I think he is hired for the job (working on that.) His strategy is to put down a lot of false leads – including pointing to himself in the story to Stroh -- as a diversionary tactic. I think he is instrumental in planting misleading stories – like a lot of firecrackers going off so you don't know where the disruption is coming from. Others would be involved in the actual kidnapping, but I believe it is orchestrated by Nosovitsky. Motive (gun for hire) + capability = Nosovitsky.
|
|